Gay marriage, gay parenting and adoption: that we often forget to say. Test Gilles Bernheim, Chief Rabbi of France

A large number of our fellow citizens perceive the claim of homosexual marriage an additional step of the democratic struggle against injustice and discrimination, in line with that commitment against racism.
It is ultimately in the name of equality, openness, modernity and the dominant right-thinking we are asked to accept the challenge to one of the foundations of our society.

And besides, surveys supporting this challenge would already be acceptable to a majority of our citizens and its inclusion in the Act does call, thus no debate in the stakes.
Chief Rabbi of France wished to take the time to analyze, sift through arguments, present the underlying theory and especially to explain the real issues of denial of sexual difference in our society.
He preferred this time of analysis and decryption in a document that everyone can see, rather than a response brief, partial, reduced the expression of a “for” or “against” and can itself open to the cartoons disqualifying unfortunately many of these sujets.L test can be downloaded below.
It is organized in two parts:

- Analysis of the arguments put forward by proponents of Act

- Same-sex marriage in the name of equality?
- Same-sex marriage in the name of protecting the spouse?
- Homoparenthood the name of love?
- Homoparenthood in the name of child protection?
- The adoption of the law on behalf of the child?
- The adoption on behalf of children waiting to be adopted?
- New forms of same-sex parenting in the name of equality?
- The Act and the general interest in the test numbers.
- Behind the arguments, the confrontation between two visions of the world

- The willingness of LGBT activists deny sexual difference
- The biblical vision of male-female complementarity
An excerpt from his conclusion is reproduced below:
“At the conclusion, it appears that the arguments of equality, love, protection or right to dismantle the child and can not alone justify a law.
[...] There would be neither courage nor glory to pass a law by using more than slogans and arguments conforming to the dominant right-thinking for fear of curses.
[...] The problem in the proposed law, the harm it would cause to our entire society for the sole benefit of a tiny minority, once they have scrambled irreversibly three things :
- Genealogies substituting parenthood paternity and maternity,
- The status of the child, subject to the passing of an object to which each is entitled,
- Where the gendering identities as natural given would be obliged to give way to the orientation expressed by each in the name of fight against inequality, perverted eradication différences.Ces issues must be clearly established in the debate on gay marriage and gay parenting. They refer to the fundamentals of society in which all of us want to live. ‘